BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THE licence of the petitioner for possession of a 12 bore gun was cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate, Ganganagar, by his order dated 17th October, 1958, which runs as follows: - "whereas an information has been laid before me that you are an un-desirable person to hold any fire-arms. THErefore, your licence No. 3441 Sri Ganganagar District has been cancelled. You are hereby asked u/s. l6 (1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1872, to deposit your arms with the Licence immediately in Police Malkhana. "
(2.) THE petitioner filed a review petition before the Additional District Magistrate, which was rejected and an appeal by the petitioner against that order before the Commissioner-Bikaner, also failed. THE petitioner has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of cancellation of the licence by the Additional District Magistrate as inconsistent with the provisions of Sec. 18-A of the Indian Arms Act (hereinafter called the Act ). This writ petition is contested by the State of Rajasthan and a reply has been filed to the effect that the Superintendent of Police, Ganganagar, placed papers before the District Magistrate showing that the petitioner was an un-desirable person to hold the licence as he was abusing his licence by intimidating people with the fire arm. THE District Magistrate acted on that report and rightly cancelled his licence. In our opinion the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 17th October, T958, cancelling the licence of the petitioner must be quashed, as it is not in accordance with Sec. 18-A of the Act. Under that provision of law the District Magistrate could have cancelled the licence only when he deemed it necessary for the security of public peace to cancel it. In that case also he should have recorded the reasons in writing for doing so. In this case it is nowhere mentioned in the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate that he deemed it necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel the petitioner's licence. It was the duty of the Additional District Magistrate before cancelling the licence to have satisfied himself that such cancellation was necessary for the security of the public peace and such satisfaction must appear on the face of the order passed for the cancellation of the licence. Another requirement of law is that the officer cancelling the licence must record the reasons in writing for the cancellation of the licence. These two requirements must be fulfilled and must appear from the order cancelling the licence. A duty is imposed on the officer cancelling the licence to be satisfied that such cancellation is necessary for the security of the public peace. For no other reasons the licence of a person can be cancelled under Sec. 18-A of the Act. The recording of the reasons is made necessary for the purpose that the person whose licence is cancelled may know the reasons for such cancellation so that he may refute the reasons before the appellate authority if an appeal is provided or he may so behave in future that he may get a new licence. We do not mean to say that a court of law is entitled to go into the sufficiency of reasons given by the officer for the cancellation of the licence but we may observe that the reasons given by the officer cancelling the licence must have a rational connection with the security of the public peace. Neither do we mean to lay down that the reasons given by the officer must be mentioned in detail. For example, the officer cancelling the licence on perusal of the police report may show his agreement with the reasons given in that report and cancel the licence without repeating them. The order is not bad only for that reason. Under such circumstances it may be taken that the officer himself recorded the reasons contained in that report in writing. Learned Assistant Government Advocate relied on Godha Singh Vs. Magistrate (1 ). In that case even the words "it is necessary for the security of the public peace" or any other words to that effect were not contained in the order passed in that case. The view taken was that the Distt. Magistrate in that case after considering the reports of the police accepted the reasons given therein, rightly cancelled the licence. With great respect we are unable to agree with the view taken in the Punjab case. The requirement of the law is that the order of cancellation must show that the Collector deemed it necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel the licence and this requirement must be fulfilled. After all the cancellation of licence for an arm is withdrawing of a valuable privilege of a person and must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. No doubt cancellation of licence is an administrative act based on the satisfaction of the officer under sec. 18-A of the Act but it is nonetheless necessary that on the face of the order it must be shown that the officer cancelling the licence deemed it necessary for the security of public peace to cancel it otherwise there is no guarantee that the authority cancelling the licence applied its mind to the provisions of law. The view taken by us is substantially in conformity with the view taken in the following cases. Benichand Vs. Distt. Magistrate,banda (2); Haji Mohammed Vs. Commissioner of Police (3); Samarendra Vs. R. N. Basu (4); Kshirode Singh Vs. District Magistrate (5); Kishorilal Vs. Dy. Commissioner Kamrup (6); and Sadhansu Kanta Vs. State of Bihar (7 ). The Calcutta High. Court in Haji Mohammed Vs. Commissioner of Police (3), Samarendra Vs. R. N. Basu (4) and Kshirode Singh Vs. District Magistrate (5) (all the three judgments were delivered by Sinha J.) laid emphasis on the point that the reasons for cancellation of licence must have been recorded in writing by the persons making the orders. With respect, we may say that this statement of law is correct with the slight modification that the person cancelling the order may even approve of the reasons given in any other document by any other authority. In such circumstances it shall be construed that the reasons for cancellation of licence are embodied in the order of the person cancelling the licence which order must be read along with the contents of the other documents. As already mentioned, the person cancelling the licence may not repeat all the contents of that document in his order. After all the order of the cancellation of a licence is passed on administrative side and need not necessarily be very detailed or elaborate. Of course the person whose licence is cancelled shall be entitled to know, if he so wishes, all the reasons which the authority cancelling the licence has approved and for that purpose he may be supplied with the copies of all the relevant documents containing the reasons for the cancellation of his licence. .;